A commentary on the case of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, convicted of the murder of 270 people in the Pan Am 103 disaster.

Sunday, 4 September 2016

Failure of the justice system

[On this date in 2011 an article in Dutch about the Lockerbie case by Daan de Wit was published on the DeepJournal website. What follows is a translation into English:]The verdict in the Lockerbie case is based on lies and deception, and the man convicted of the crime, Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, cannot be the perpetrator. This appears from revelations contained in a secret section of an official report.'Lockerbie' was investigated down to the last detail by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, SCCRC. After four years, the Commission produced the findings of an investigation which cost millions to carry out and that is partly still secret, but which was seen by journalist Marcello Mega: 'The report shows Scots detectives on the original investigation, together with Crown prosecutors and their US colleagues, deliberately covered up evidence and witness statements that did not fit the case.' This quote is taken from an article by Mega published in The Scottish Sun. His article can no longer be found on The Scottish Sun website. It was erroneously edited by one of the newspaper's editors, after which - even though it was related to a technicality - the article was removed from the website in its entirety. Upon request, Mega emailed the quote and the remainder of the article to DeepJournal.'Megrahi is not the Lockerbie bomber'

Before Mega's article was removed, it had already been quoted online: '[...] Robert Black QC, retired Professor of Scots Law at Edinburgh University and the architect of the Lockerbie trial, told how he believes Megrahi is innocent. Mr Black said: "Megrahi is not the Lockerbie bomber and these revelations further underline that. […] "That the judges did convict him on the flimsiest of evidence, which required several leaps of faith on a number of crucial matters that had not been proven by the Crown, remains a matter of profound concern for all of us." Mr Black said it was now vital that a top-level public inquiry is held to get to the truth.'Back in July, Mega wrote: 'You’ll just have to take my word for it that this case represents the worst injustice perpetrated by the courts that I’ve encoutered in 22 years as a journalist.’In a letter dating roughly to 2008 that was recently discovered in the headquarters of the Libyan intelligence services and directed at a Gaddafi advisor, al-Megrahi writes that he is innocent.'Failure of the justice system'

Robert Black quotes from Mega's article: ‘[The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission] has grave concerns over the evidence against the 59-year-old [Megrahi] following a multi-million-pound, four-year investigation. In the dossier - seen by The Scottish Sun - Maltese shopkeeper Tony Gauci, who helped finger Megrahi as the bomber, is described as an "unreliable" witness. […] One undisclosed memo reveals the FBI discussed with Scots cops an offer of unlimited cash to Gauci - with "$10,000 available immediately".' Mega from his email: 'He and his brother Paul were rewarded for their testimony, receiving more than $2m and $1m respectively.'An 800-page summary of the report was published in 2007. A quote from the summary: ‘The applicant [Megrahi] may have suffered a miscarriage of justice’. A 2007 headline from The Scotsman reads: 'Lockerbie evidence 'was tampered with, destroyed and overlooked'.'Police are also accused of lying in court while prosecutors - including then Lord Advocate Colin Boyd QC - are suspected of suppressing bombshell evidence that would likely have seen Megrahi walk free.'Petition for a new investigation

On Black's website is a petition from Justice for Megrahi, an organization that Black is affiliated with: ‘We would argue that for nearly 23 years Scottish Courts and the Scottish Government have failed to deliver the truth about Lockerbie despite these claims of supremacy in human rights matters. We are at a loss to equate the current government’s refusal to hold a judicial inquiry into Lockerbie with this principle that Scotland and Scotland alone is capable of delivering justice to all of its people.’ Mega writes: 'Dr Jim Swire, who lost his daughter Flora on the doomed flight, said: ‘This underlines again the need for a full public inquiry. It’s too easy for everyone to maintain Megrahi was convicted so he must be guilty, when clearly he is not.' Megrahi was recently tracked down in Tripoli.Palestinian terrorists acting on orders from Iran

This four part series of articles on Lockerbie offers more background information on the case. It starts with the search for the real perpetrator. For the time being all signs point in the direction of Iran and the Palestinian terrorist organization PFLP-GC. In 1988 the US Navy's USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner, killing all 290 civilian passengers on board. In retaliation, the PFLP-GC, under the command of Ahmed Jibril and acting on orders from Iran, is suspected of bringing down Pan Am flight 103 that same year.

3 comments:

So how did the PFLP-GC get hold of clothes which were wrapped round the bomb in the suitcase that was loaded at heathrow. After all these years we now know from MacAskill that Megrahi didn't buy those clothes yet he was convicted on the grounds that he did. Why won't the government allow an appeal or hold a public inquiry.Have the got something to HIDE? Clearly they have.

"...the judges did convict him on the flimsiest of evidence, which required several leaps of faith..."

It's that simple.

What we had against Megrahi with reasonable certainty, at trial time was, that he was a Libyan in some government job, on Malta on a false passport on a date where the crime of loading KM180 with a bomb should have taken place, that he knew Bollier, and that Libya had bought timers. And he lied to a journalist. Did I miss anything?

The 'identification' of Megrahi as buyer of the clothes - so absurd, that we can't in our wildest imagination imagine an eye-witness expert saying anything else than "Sorry, this is just useless".

Instead of just stating that Guaci was an "excellent witness", why don't the Cohens come up with some credible person that supports the statement? Finding the opposite has been done, even though most would be justified in saying "Please do not ask me to put my professional reputation into stating the plain obvious".

No, experts are not needed. You'd need to be a Scottish judge to accept it. "There are situations where a careful witness who will not commit himself beyond saying that there is a close resemblance can be regarded as more reliable and convincing..."

If he would have said "Sure I bought the clothes, but I forgot them at work after returning to Libya" could we then conclude "Aha! He must have known about the plot!"?

Let's see what the judges said:"... it is not difficult to infer that he must have been aware of the purpose for which they were being bought."

We need to review our conclusion in the UA flight 629. Ms. Daisy King and husband will certainly have been involved, having bought clothes in the bomb suitcase.

Uncertain evidence, the judges making inferences, and these are then established as facts, however thin they may be.

It is very easy to find more examples.

"From the evidence which we have discussed so far, we are satisfied that it has been proved that the primary suitcase containing the explosive device was dispatched from Malta, passed through Frankfurt and was loaded onto PA103 at Heathrow."

"The clear inference which we draw from this evidence is that the conception, planning and execution of the plot which led to the planting of the explosive device was of Libyan origin."

"It is possible to infer that this visit [by Megrahi] under a false name the night before the explosive device was planted at Luqa, followed by his departure for Tripoli the following morning at or about the time the device must have been planted, was a visit connected with the planting of the device."

I still recall reading the verdict first time, and becoming uncertain of the mening of "infer", which I believed being synonymous to "conclude". Did it rather mean "...would not contradict the theory that..."? But, no.

Then I thought that the verdict for some reason simply had left out critical evidence.

But no.

Year after year passes. Nothing new to say, nothing needed either.

But the totally idiotic verdicts still stands, and the first SCCRC finding was the only slip, not to be repeated.

Does it matter? Of course it does. Prepare your children for how the world really works. Tell them how The Emperor's New Clothes would have ended in real life.

Otherwise they will one day feel mislead, surprised, frustrated and disappointed!

Of course its vitally important that they do not allow an appeal or the SCCRC findings are acted upon. Hence MacAskill changing the law to prevent that happening.This is really showing us how governments behave and cover their actions behind a veil of secrecy. In whose interests are their acting. Certainly not the people who elected them. In the meantime Dumb people believe in the lies of politicians that they always act with honesty and integrety and not in the interests of those large corporations and wealthy people who channel money into their offshore coffers. As for the Emperors New Clothes (Scottish Version)They fit perfectly and The lord Advocate says they were both guilty as charged and loaded the bomb in Malta.I am one of many children that can see through the Lord Advocates lies but then who listens to children when we have all those clowns dressed in wigs and gowns who profess to know better.

Translate

Blog Archive

Contributors

VISITS

The hit counter that I have been using has given up the ghost. From now on, I shall periodically disclose here the total number of pageviews from July 2010, as provided by blogspot/blogger. As at 16.00 GMT on 16 January 2019, the pageviews numbered 1,867,567.

unique visitors since 2200 on 13 Nov 09

Comments

Readers are invited to comment on blog posts. All comments require to be pre-moderated by me, and I shall reject all (a) that are not related to the Lockerbie disaster or (b) that fail to meet my -- perhaps idiosyncratic -- standards of courtesy towards other contributors. Comments will not be rejected simply because I disagree with them or because I, or other contributors, find them irritating. But comments will be rejected if they distort or misrepresent the evidence; are defamatory; or if they risk embroiling me, as publisher, in defamation proceedings. I am perfectly relaxed about being sued in respect of material which I personally have posted -- but not in respect of material that others wish to post as comments and which, in any case, I often strongly disagree with.

Particularly during my sojourns in South Africa, it may not be possible for me to perform the moderation function speedily. I regret the necessity of moderation but it has been rendered inevitable by the behaviour of a particular commentator whose contributions will always and without exception be rejected.

No correspondence will be entered into regarding moderation decisions.

Contact me

If you have news or views about the Lockerbie case, you can contact me at rblackqc@outlook.com